The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a husband and his family members after the estranged couple settled their matrimonial dispute through a one-time permanent alimony payment of Rs 13 lakh.
In an order issued on September 9, Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee ruled that maintaining the prosecution would serve no constructive purpose, observing that continuing the case would merely prolong distress for everyone involved and burden judicial resources without delivering a fruitful outcome. The bench noted that refusing to close the case at this stage could prove counterproductive.
Terms Of The Financial Settlement
Under the terms agreed upon by the separated couple, the Rs 13 lakh permanent alimony is to be disbursed in three instalments.
The court recorded that the husband has already paid the initial instalment of Rs 3 lakh. The second payment is slated for release upon the formal withdrawal of both the criminal case and separate proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. The final sum of Rs 7 lakh is scheduled to be handed over on the date of the final hearing in their mutual-consent divorce case.
Parties Reach Amicable Resolution
The legal dispute originated from matrimonial discord that led the wife to file complaints alleging dowry demands, physical and mental cruelty, and criminal breach of trust. Formal charges were framed against the accused in 2019.
The conflict was subsequently resolved following the intervention of relatives and well-wishers, prompting the spouses to pursue an amicable parting and file for divorce by mutual consent.
During the hearing on the quashing petition, advocate Sutapa Sanyal, representing the husband, submitted that the matter stood resolved through the agreed lump-sum alimony. Counsel for the wife, Sanat Kumar Das, affirmed that his client had reached a settlement, chose not to support the allegations made in her original complaint, and raised no objection to setting aside the proceedings.
State Concurs On Private Dispute
The state also took no objection to concluding the criminal proceedings. Advocate Rajdeep Biswas, appearing on behalf of the state, informed the bench that investigators had examined four witnesses and that seized stridhan belongings had already been returned to the wife.
Biswas submitted that because the controversy was inherently personal and matrimonial, with no public policy considerations at stake, the state did not oppose the settlement.
